2020 CENSUS

Bureau Needs to 

Improve Scheduling 

Practices to Enhance 

Ability to Meet 

Address List 

Development 

Deadlines

Report to the Chairman,

Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate

November 2013

GAO-14-59

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-59, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 2013

2020 CENSUS

Bureau Needs to Improve Scheduling Practices to 

Enhance Ability to Meet Address List Development 

Deadlines

Why GAO Did This Study

According to the Bureau, it is 

committed to limiting its per household 

cost for the 2020 Census to that of the 

2010 Census, and believes that 

reducing the cost of updating the MAF

can be of significant help. Because of 

tight deadlines and the involvement of 

several different Bureau units in this 

effort, effective scheduling and 

collaboration practices are important

for the entire process to stay on track.

GAO was asked to examine 

scheduling and collaboration in the 

Bureau’s efforts to develop a more 

cost-effective MAF. GAO (1) assessed 

the reliability of the schedules for two 

key MAF development programs, and 

(2) examined the extent to which the 

Bureau is following leading practices 

for collaboration for its MAF 

development work. GAO analyzed the 

schedules for the two programs most 

relevant to developing the address list, 

and reviewed strategic plans and other 

documents establishing coordination 

mechanisms and compared them to 

leading practices for intra-agency 

collaborative efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Census 

Director take a number of actions to 

improve the reliability of its schedules, 

including steps to ensure that all 

relevant activities are included in the 

schedules, complete scheduling logic 

is in place, and a quantitative risk 

assessment is conducted. In addition, 

GAO recommends a robust workforce 

planning effort to identify and address 

gaps in scheduling skills for staff that 

work on schedules. The Department of 

Commerce concurred and suggested 

several clarifications, which GAO

included in the report as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The Census Bureau (Bureau) is not producing reliable schedules for the 

two programs most relevant to building the Master Address File (MAF)—

the 2020 Research and Testing program and the Geographic Support 

System Initiative.

• The Bureau did not include all activities in either schedule. The 

schedules appeared to have reasonable durations for most 

activities, but they did not include information about required 

resources.

• For both schedules, the Bureau logically linked many activities in a 

sequence. Yet in both schedules the Bureau did not identify the 

preceding and following activity for a significant number of activities. 

Without this logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future 

activities cannot be seen in the schedule, potentially resulting in 

unforeseen delays.

• The Bureau is not in a position to carry out a quantitative risk 

analysis on the schedules.

As a result of these issues, the schedules are producing inaccurate dates,

which could mislead Bureau managers to falsely conclude that all of the 

work is on schedule when it may not be. Without reliable schedule 

information, such as valid forecasted dates and the amount of flexibility 

remaining in the schedule, management faces challenges in assessing

the progress of MAF development efforts and determining what activities 

most need attention. Staff managing the schedules said that they had not 

received thorough training or certification on scheduling best practices, 

and, according to schedule managers, staff turnover contributed to the 

issues GAO identified. Workforce planning and training can help the 

Bureau have the skills in place to ensure that characteristics of a reliable 

schedule are met to support key management decisions. 

The Bureau has documented collaboration activities that follow many 

leading practices for collaboration. Because several divisions are involved 

in efforts to develop the MAF, collaboration across these divisions is 

critical. In recent months, the Bureau has put in place a variety of 

mechanisms to aid coordination, such as crosscutting task teams. For 

example, research projects relevant to developing the MAF have 

representation from multiple divisions. The Bureau has also established 

memorandums of understanding across divisions to provide a broad 

framework for working together. Continued management attention to

collaboration practices will help to ensure that collaboration across units 

View GAO-14-59. For more information, is occurring as MAF development continues.

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Letter 1

Background 4

Because Schedules Are Not Reliable, Management Lacks Valid 

Information to Assess Progress and Manage Risk 6

The Bureau Generally Documented Leading Practices for 

Collaboration in Its Master Address File Plans 13

Conclusions 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 18

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20

Appendix II Description of Scheduling Best Practices 22

Appendix III Assessment of the Extent to Which the Bureau Followed 

Scheduling Best Practices 23

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 25

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment 28

Tables

Table 1: The Bureau’s Schedules for 2020 Research and Testing and 

the Geographic Support System Initiative Met the 

Characteristics of a Reliable Schedule to Varying Extents 7

Table 2: The Bureau Generally Documented Leading Collaboration 

Practices in Its Plans for Developing a Cost-Effective 

Master Address File 14

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Figure

Figure 1: Planned Research and Testing Will Help Inform Future 

Design Decisions 5

Abbreviations

Bureau U.S. Census Bureau

MAF Master Address File

TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing

GSS-I Geographic Support System Initiative

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 21, 2013

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Chairman Carper:

The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) relies on a complete and accurate 

address list, along with precise maps, as the fundamental building blocks 

of a successful census. An accurate address list is critical because it both 

identifies all households that are to receive a census questionnaire and 

serves as the control mechanism for following up with households that fail 

to respond to the initial questionnaire. Precise maps are critical for 

counting the population in the proper locations—the basis of 

congressional reapportionment and redistricting. If the Bureau’s address 

list and maps are inaccurate, people can be missed, counted more than 

once, or counted at the wrong location. However, our prior work has 

shown that developing an accurate address list has been both labor 

intensive and costly. In the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, for example, 

Bureau field staff verified every existing Master Address File (MAF) 

housing unit address in the nation and added missing housing units by 

going door-to-door. The 2010 effort, known as address canvassing, 

required 140,000 temporary workers to verify 145 million addresses at a 

cost of $444 million.1 The Bureau felt that in the absence of research 

demonstrating where it could rely on something less than door-to-door 

visits to update its address list, it needed to proceed with full canvassing 

to develop a quality address list and maps. In addition, census workers 

used handheld computers for the first time in the 2010 address 

canvassing operation to capture global positioning system information to 

improve Bureau maps and address lists.

 1

GAO, 2020 Census: Initial Research Milestones Generally Met but Plans Needed to 

Mitigate Highest Risks, GAO-13-53 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2012).
Page 2 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

With a life cycle cost around $13 billion, the 2010 Census was the most 

expensive population count in U.S. history, costing over 50 percent more 

than the $8.1 billion 2000 Census.2

The Bureau’s 2020 Research and Planning Office along with four other 

principal Bureau units

According to the Bureau, it is 

committed to limiting its per household cost for the 2020 Census to not 

more than that of the $98 per household cost of the 2010 Census, in 

constant 2010 dollars. The Bureau believes that reducing the cost of 

address canvassing can help limit costs.

3

According to the Bureau, MAF development must begin to transition from 

conducting research to inform the design of the 2020 Census to the 

operational development phase in 2014 and 2015. Several decisions 

about design options for the 2020 Census need to be made by 2015 so 

that the Bureau can begin implementing them in time for the 2020 

Census. Effective scheduling and collaboration practices are important for 

the entire effort to stay on track. In our prior work, we recommended the 

Bureau improve scheduling practices by including estimates of the 

resources in the schedule.

have several projects under way researching 

options intended to more cost-effectively build the MAF and the map 

system that supports it, called the Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing (TIGER). (Hereafter, we refer to these as 

MAF). Primary among the efforts is the Geographic Support System 

Initiative (GSS-I), being carried out by the Bureau’s Geography Division. 

A central goal of GSS-I is to enable the Bureau to use “targeted” address 

canvassing to replace the more expensive “full” address canvassing from 

prior censuses. Targeted address canvassing would limit the operation 

only to areas where the Bureau believes door-to-door verification is 

needed to develop an accurate and complete address list, such as areas 

where there has been significant new housing development. In selecting 

an approach to address canvassing, the Bureau is balancing cost and 

quality trade-offs.

4

 2

In constant 2010 dollars.

The Department of Commerce did not 

3

The four additional units are the Center for Administrative Records Research and 

Applications, the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, the Geography Division, and the 

Field Division.

4

GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Made Progress on Schedule and Operational 

Control Tools, but Needs to Prioritize Remaining System Requirements, GAO-10-59

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2009). 
Page 3 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

respond to the recommendation at that time. Effective collaboration could 

present a management challenge for the Bureau. For example, in 2011 

the Bureau’s Director testified about the need to break down internal 

barriers to coordination.

You asked us to examine the status of scheduling and collaboration in the 

Bureau’s efforts to develop a more cost-effective MAF. We (1) assessed 

the reliability of the schedules for two key MAF development programs, 

and (2) examined the extent to which the Bureau is following leading 

practices for collaboration for its MAF development work.

To meet the first objective, we analyzed the GSS-I schedule and the 2020 

Research and Testing schedule and their supporting documents against 

the characteristics of a reliable schedule.5 We also spoke with relevant 

Bureau officials regarding the GSS-I and 2020 Research and Testing 

schedules. For the second objective, we reviewed documents related to 

collaboration including the Bureau’s 2020 Strategic Plan and 2013-2017 

Strategic Plan, as well as other documents establishing coordination 

mechanisms and compared them to leading practices for intra-agency 

collaborative efforts.6

We conducted our work from April 2013 to November 2013 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

Additionally, we spoke with relevant officials 

regarding collaboration in the Geography and 2020 Research and 

Planning Office divisions as well as in the Center for Administrative 

Records Research and Applications, Decennial Statistical Studies 

Division, and Field divisions, which are participating in some MAF 

development activities with the two primary divisions. For more details on 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

 5

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, 

Exposure Draft GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). Underlying these 

characteristics are 10 leading practices, which are described in appendix II. These 

characteristics and leading practices were developed in 2012 based on our practices for 

creating a reliable cost estimate and in consultation with experts from the scheduling 

community. 

6

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); GAO, 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain Collaboration Among 

Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). In 2012, we developed 

key considerations for collaboration using our past work, including GAO-06-15, as well as 

literature reviews and interviews with government experts.
Page 4 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

The MAF is a data file that contains a list of all known living quarters in 

the United States and Puerto Rico. The Bureau uses the MAF to support 

the decennial census as well as the American Community Survey and 

other ongoing demographic surveys.7

For the 2010 Census, the Bureau updated the MAF through a complete 

address canvassing that verified virtually every existing MAF address and 

added new addresses and deleted those that no longer exist. While full 

address canvassing helped ensure the accuracy of the address list, we 

believe it was also very costly. According to Bureau decision documents 

leading up to the 2010 Census, the Bureau canceled planned research on 

the feasibility of targeting its canvassing when prioritizing its research 

agenda early in the decade given its funding levels. As part of the 

Bureau’s effort to conduct the 2020 Census at a cost lower than the 2010 

Census, the Bureau is researching the feasibility of conducting targeted 

address canvassing, verifying addresses in only select areas that are 

more likely to require updates to the address list. To support targeted 

address canvassing, the Bureau plans to increase its reliance on other 

previously used sources of updates, including U.S. Postal Service files, 

commercial database files, and significant input from state and local 

governments. For example, GSS-I is working to allow government 

agencies at all levels to more regularly share and update their address 

lists with the Bureau throughout the decade (rather than solely 2 years 

prior to the decennial, as had been the case in prior decennial censuses) 

so that fewer areas need to be fully canvassed.

The MAF contains address 

information, census geographic location codes, and source and history 

data. In conjunction with the MAF, the TIGER contains spatial 

geographical information that allows information from the MAF to be 

mapped.

 7

The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing statistical survey that provides 

data every year. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how 

federal and state funds are distributed each year.

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

The life cycle for 2020 Census preparation is divided into five phases, as 

illustrated in figure 1. The Bureau intends to use the early research and 

testing phase through fiscal year 2015 to develop a proposal for 

conducting targeted address canvassing that considers both cost and 

quality implications. By the end of the early research and testing phase, 

the Bureau plans to complete decisions about preliminary operational 

designs rather than continuing critical research and testing until the end of 

the decade as it did for the 2010 Census.

Figure 1: Planned Research and Testing Will Help Inform Future Design Decisions

Note: FY indicates fiscal year.
Page 6 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

The Bureau faces legally mandated deadlines for delivering census 

tabulations.8

We determined that a schedule not only provides a road map for 

systematic execution of a program, but also provides a means by which 

to gauge progress, identify and address potential problems, and promote 

accountability. In the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide,

Effective scheduling is critical for ensuring that the Bureau 

adheres to a timeline that meets these deadlines. The Bureau relies on 

schedules to help monitor progress of its many interdependent activities. 

The schedules are essential to help manage the risks to preparing and 

implementing a successful decennial census. Certain dates within the 

schedule could be subject to change or activities may be canceled as a 

result of time or budget constraints. As dates change from the original 

schedule or there are significant changes to the work planned, there 

could be an associated increase in risk as the Bureau may have less time 

than originally planned to complete future activities in time to make 

decisions needed to execute the 2020 Census.

9

• Comprehensive: The schedule should identify all activities and 

resources necessary to accomplish the project. The schedule should 

cover the scope of work to be performed so that the full picture is 

available to managers.

we identified 

four characteristics of a reliable schedule. A schedule should be:

• Well constructed: Activities should be logically sequenced and critical 

activities that would affect the timelines of the schedule should be 

identified.

• Credible: All schedules should be linked to a complete master 

schedule for managers to reference and analyzed for how risk 

impacts the outcome of the schedule.

• Controlled: There should be a documented process for changes to the 

schedule so that the integrity of the schedule is assured.

For a schedule to be reliable, it must substantially or fully meet all criteria 

for these four characteristics. These characteristics and their criteria are 

described in more detail in appendix II.

 8

The Bureau’s legally mandated deadlines include Census Day, which is April 1, and the 

delivery of apportionment counts to the President, which must be done by December 31. 

13 U.S.C. § 141.

9

Exposure Draft GAO-12-120G. 

Because Schedules 

Are Not Reliable, 

Management Lacks 

Valid Information to 

Assess Progress and 

Manage Risk
Page 7 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

We found that the Bureau’s 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I 

schedules exhibit some of the characteristics of a reliable schedule, yet 

important weaknesses remain. Each of the schedules substantially met 

one of the four characteristics (controlled) and minimally or partially met 

the other three characteristics (comprehensive, well constructed, and 

credible) (see table 1).

Table 1: The Bureau’s Schedules for 2020 Research and Testing and the 

Geographic Support System Initiative Met the Characteristics of a Reliable 

Schedule to Varying Extents

Characteristic 2020 Research and Testing Schedule GSS-I Schedule

Comprehensive ◓ ◓

Well constructed ◔ ◔

Credible ◔ ◔

Controlled ◕ ◕

Legend:  Fully Met: The Bureau provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire characteristic.

◕ Substantially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a large portion of 

the characteristic.

◓ Partially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies about half of the characteristic.

◔ Minimally Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of 

the characteristic.

 Not Met: The Bureau provided no evidence that satisfies any of the characteristic.

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data.

Examples of the extent to which these characteristics were met are 

provided below. For a more detailed explanation, see appendix III.

The Bureau is using a work breakdown structure to guide the activities of 

the 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I schedules. A work breakdown 

structure defines in detail the work necessary to accomplish a program’s 

objectives. However, not all activities listed in the work breakdown 

structure are included in the 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I 

schedules. For example, in the GSS-I schedule, 20 of the 28 projects 

have very few activities in them, indicating a lack of detail. Additionally, 

two MAF-related projects in the 2020 Research and Testing schedule, the 

MAF Business Rules Improvement project and the Frame Extract 

Evaluation project, do not have activities assigned to them. If research 

activities—or any other activities relevant to developing the MAF—are not 

listed in a schedule, managers may not be able to readily identify causes 

of delay. According to the Bureau, the schedules are still evolving, these 

Comprehensive–

Partially Met
Page 8 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

two projects have not yet started or been staffed, and activities and detail 

will continue to be added to the schedule.

For both schedules, the Bureau appeared to record reasonable durations 

for most activities, helping to ensure that managers can understand the 

time activities are expected to take and can hold staff who are executing 

these activities accountable for meeting deadlines. However, neither 

schedule included information about what levels of resources are required 

to complete the planned work. Information on resource needs and 

availability in each work period assists with forecasting the likelihood that 

activities will be completed as scheduled. Bureau officials stated that they 

hope to begin the exercise of identifying the resources needed for each 

activity in both schedules by early 2014 and are waiting for decisions and 

guidance from the Bureau’s effort to standardize cost estimation practices 

enterprise-wide. In 2012 we recommended, and the Bureau agreed, that 

the Bureau establish and communicate a timeline for all enterprise activity 

so that decennial managers can plan accordingly.10 However, the Bureau 

has not yet produced this timeline.

In both of the schedules, the Bureau logically linked many of the activities 

in a sequence. This helps staff identify next steps as they progress 

through MAF development activities and helps managers identify the 

impact of changes in one activity on subsequent activities. Yet in both 

schedules, the Bureau did not identify the preceding and following activity 

for a number of activities (20 percent for the GSS-I schedule and 9 

percent for the 2020 Research and Testing schedule). Scheduling staff 

were unable to explain why this information was missing. Without this 

logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future activities cannot be 

seen in the schedule. For example, in the GSS-I schedule, the “delivery of 

the targeted address canvassing recommendation report” to managers 

has no predecessor. According to the Bureau, this report is to outline the 

research findings, impacts, operational considerations, and benefits of 

conducting a targeted address canvassing. For those activities that lack 

predecessors in the schedule, the real effects of changes or delays in 

preceding activities would not be visible in the schedule, potentially 

resulting in unforeseen delays in the recommendation report.

 10GAO, 2020 Census: Additional Steps Are Needed to Build on Early Planning, 

GAO-12-626 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2012). 

Well Constructed–

Minimally Met
Page 9 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

The Bureau used a large number of constraints which, if used 

inappropriately, can affect the reliability of the schedule. Activities for 

which constraints would be justified are Census Day and the delivery of 

the Apportionment Count, because they have legally mandated 

deadlines. But, for example, the Bureau also placed a constraint on the 

delivery of a draft targeted address canvassing report. Such an activity 

would likely not need a constraint because delays in preceding activities 

could affect the actual timing of the delivery of the draft report. Placing a 

constraint on this type of activity would mask in the schedule the effects 

of any changes or delays that would affect the true delivery date. While 

our schedule guide states that documenting the justification for 

constraints is important, the Bureau has not provided justifications in the 

schedule for its use of constraints. The Bureau told us that justifications 

are in meeting notes and e-mails, rather than the schedule. If this 

information is not included in the schedule, the justification for constraints 

remains unclear to those who did not have access to the meeting notes or 

e-mails. Also, leaving constraints within the schedule beyond when the 

schedule is being tested can make the schedule unreliable for other 

purposes.

Additionally, inappropriately used constraints make it difficult to identify 

the schedules’ “critical path”—the sequence of steps needed to achieve 

the end goal that, if they slip, could negatively affect the overall project 

completion date. The absence of a critical path or a poorly constructed 

one calls into question the reliability of the calculated schedule dates, 

such as estimates of when research results will be available. When 

certain constraints are placed on an activity, this can automatically trigger 

the schedule software to place an activity on the calculated critical path 

when it might otherwise not be. Because the Bureau used so many 

constraints and the schedule is missing logic about preceding and 

following activities, it is possible that the calculated critical path includes 

activities that are not necessarily germane to the true critical path. 

Eliminating the unnecessary constraints and including additional logic 

would provide a more accurate picture of the degree of criticality in the 

schedule. Until the Bureau can produce a true critical path, it will not be 

able to provide reliable timeline estimates of effects of schedule changes. 

This undermines the Bureau’s ability to focus on activities that will have 

detrimental effects on the progress of designing targeted address 

canvassing and other 2020 Census decisions.

Finally, a critical path with so many activities appearing on it is not useful 

to managers in identifying what is truly necessary to develop the MAF in a 

timely manner. For example, within the 2020 Research and Testing 
Page 10 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

schedule, 52 percent of activities not yet completed appear on the 

calculated critical path. Similarly, for the GSS-I schedule, 19 percent of 

the activities appear on the calculated critical path, almost half of which 

could be because constraints are placed on them. Such a large share of 

activities appearing on the critical path can reduce the flexibility managers 

have to complete activities in parallel with each other or to reallocate 

resources when the same resource is needed for multiple activities on the 

path.

The schedules have shortcomings with (1) the integration into 

management reporting and (2) the ability to automatically change as 

activities within the schedule change. First, management documents from 

the 2020 Research and Planning Office indicate the Bureau does not 

always derive information on milestones from the schedule. For example, 

two documents dated July 2013 cite the same baseline date from the 

schedule list major milestones, but the documents indicate a different 

date for the same part of the research and testing schedule; one states 

that the research and testing milestones for the current phase will be 

complete in September 2014, while the other states that these milestones 

will be completed in September 2015. Bureau managers acknowledged 

that the planning milestones within the schedule had not been updated to 

reflect ongoing Bureau management decisions about reprioritizing 

research and testing plans in light of budget uncertainty during fiscal year 

2013. Without keeping the schedule current and using the most recent 

information to derive information for management such as schedule 

milestones, there are limited assurances that management is receiving 

reliable information. Second, we tested the schedules to determine how 

they changed when dates within the schedule were changed. In our test, 

the Research and Testing schedule responded automatically to changes 

in dates of activities, following best practices. However, the GSS-I 

schedule did not respond in the same way: When we adjusted the date of 

an activity, subsequent related activities appearing necessary to achieve 

the milestone did not change, even though the ultimate milestone date 

changed based on the date shift.

More importantly, though, the Bureau is not in a position to carry out 

systematic quantitative risk analysis on its schedule. A quantitative risk 

analysis relies on statistical simulation to predict the level of confidence in 

meeting a program’s completion date. The Bureau has identified risks to 

MAF development efforts, but a quantitative risk analysis would have the 

advantage of illustrating the impact of risks on the schedule and how that 

would affect the Bureau’s ability to meet milestones and provide a 

Credible–Minimally Met
Page 11 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

measure of how much time contingency should be built in the schedule to 

help manage certain risks. Bureau officials said they were waiting for 

decisions about scheduling software before making decisions about 

conducting a schedule risk analysis. Without a more credible schedule, 

the Bureau cannot determine the likelihood that information will be 

available in time to inform decisions about building the MAF; moreover, 

the Bureau may not be able to fully understand which risks could affect 

when information will be available to make decisions and the likelihood 

that the risks could occur.

Both schedules were baselined—creating a comparison schedule to 

measure, monitor, and report the project’s progress—in March 2013, and 

there is evidence the Bureau has a schedule management process in 

place and a method for logging changes to the schedule that is in line 

with best practices. By baselining the schedule, the Bureau helps provide 

some accountability and transparency to the measurement of the 

program’s progress. The Bureau has implemented a formal change 

control process which helps ensure the measurement of meaningful 

progress through comparisons to past versions of the schedule. The 

Bureau clearly documented its criteria for justifying changes. A team of 

senior managers is to approve the change and Bureau teams are to 

acknowledge the change’s effect if the schedule indicates they will be 

affected by the change. The Bureau provides narratives that go along 

with some schedule updates and includes these in monthly status reports, 

ensuring that management are informed of schedule changes on a 

regular basis in accordance with leading practices. This practice helps 

Bureau officials use their schedules to produce reports that can be used 

to identify work that should have started or finished by that time. Bureau 

managers acknowledged that not all changes reflecting Bureau decisions 

on dealing with budget uncertainty have been processed and reflected yet 

in the schedule. Yet with processes in place—and being used—that 

ensure the schedule is updated, management can be reasonably assured 

that it is looking at current data when examining the schedule, contingent 

upon the accuracy of the updates.

Controlled–

Substantially Met
Page 12 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

In conversations with Bureau officials responsible for managing the 2020 

Research and Testing and GSS-I schedules, they said that they had not 

received training or certification in scheduling practices,11

Having staff and their managers knowledgeable in scheduling practices 

will likely help avoid many of the deficiencies identified in these 

schedules. In our past work,

although staff 

have received training in the software they are using for scheduling and 

many staff have been trained in project management. The scheduling 

managers referred to GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide as a key 

resource for their efforts; however, staff answers to interview questions 

about leading practices demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the 

practices. For example, staff explained the presence of the large number 

of constraints in the schedule they provided to us was related to their 

occasional “testing” of the schedule, but guidelines for a baselined 

schedule state that it represents the original configuration of the program 

plan, and would, thus, not include temporary changes such as the staff 

described. Both the 2020 Research and Planning Office and the 

Geography Division have contracted for scheduling support in recent 

years, and maintain that their contractors have a number of certifications 

in the advanced use of appropriate software and project management 

methods. Further, Bureau officials described high turnover and extended 

vacancies in the management team over the 2020 Research and 

Planning Office’s scheduling contractors and staff until shortly before we 

began our audit and obtained a copy of their schedule to review. After we 

completed our audit work at the Bureau, officials told us that subject to 

the availability of funding, schedule team members will pursue 

professional certification to further develop and refine their project 

scheduling skills. Geography Division managers also stressed to us their 

commitment to schedule management.

12

 11Several scheduling certifications are available by professional organizations. Examples 

include the Planning and Scheduling Professional certificate from the Association for the 

Advancement of Cost Engineering or the Scheduling Professional certification from the 

Project Management Institute. 

we found that strategic workforce planning 

can help align an organization’s workforce with the competencies needed 

12GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). We developed the key principles of 

workforce planning by reviewing documents from organizations with expertise in workforce 

planning models and federal agencies with promising workforce planning practices, as 

well as our past work.

Scheduling Challenges 

Demonstrate Lack of 

Expertise among Staff
Page 13 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

to achieve programmatic goals. A key principle for strategic workforce 

planning includes systematically identifying gaps in competencies in staff 

with the goal of minimizing or eliminating these gaps. Our prior work has 

shown that organizations can use methods such as training, contracting, 

staff development, and hiring to help align skills in order to eliminate gaps 

in competencies needed for mission success. By conducting a workforce 

planning process that includes an analysis of skills and training needed, 

such as what the Bureau describes for its scheduling staff in the future, 

and the identification of gaps to be addressed, the Bureau can better 

ensure that staff who manage the schedules understand the leading 

practices and the importance of adhering to them. Thus, the Bureau can 

better ensure it has the capacity to develop schedules able to support key 

management decisions.

Several divisions are involved in efforts to build the 2020 MAF, making 

collaboration critical to ensuring that participating divisions work together 

to achieve the Bureau’s goals. In our past work,13 we identified leading 

practices to foster collaborative relationships across organizational 

boundaries. We determined that four of these practices were directly 

relevant to the Bureau’s internal efforts to build its MAF. Table 2 identifies 

and describes these four practices and shows our assessment of the 

extent to which Bureau documentation demonstrates the Bureau engaged 

in these leading practices.

 13GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); GAO, 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain Collaboration Among 

Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

The Bureau Generally 

Documented Leading

Practices for 

Collaboration in

Its Master Address 

File Plans
Page 14 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Table 2: The Bureau Generally Documented Leading Collaboration Practices in Its Plans for Developing a Cost-Effective 

Master Address File

Leading practice Characteristics 

Extent 

documented

Define and articulate a common outcome Collaborating entities must have a clear and compelling rationale to 

work together, requiring participating staff to define and articulate the 

common purpose they are seeking to achieve that is consistent with 

any of their respective divisional goals. 



Establish mutually reinforcing or joint 

strategies

To achieve a common outcome, collaborating entities need to 

establish strategies that work in concert with those of other 

participants in the collaborative effort or are joint in nature. For the 

collaborative effort, such strategies help in aligning the participating 

division’s activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish 

the common outcome. 



Agree on roles and responsibilities Collaborating entities should work together to define and agree on 

their respective roles and responsibilities including how the 

collaborative effort will be led. In doing so, participating entities can 

clarify who will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, 

and facilitate decision making. 

◓

Reinforce individual accountability for 

collaborative efforts through performance 

management systems

Entities link personal accountability to collaboration by adding a 

collaboration-related competency or performance standard against 

which individual performance can be evaluated.



Legend: Generally documented; ◓ Partially documented; Not generally documented

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau data.

The Bureau has documented its goals for building a more cost-effective 

MAF as part of its strategic plans. The Bureau’s 2020 Census Strategic 

Plan set forth Bureau-wide goals for the MAF and the 2020 Census. 

These goals provide a common rationale for Bureau teams to work 

across organizational boundaries. Specifically, the Bureau has 

documented its intention to

• improve the coverage and accuracy of the address list;

• continuously update the address list through the decade; and

• improve the cost-effectiveness of the address list.

The Geography Division and the 2020 Research and Planning Office 

have incorporated these common outcomes as part of their individual 

efforts. Officials in these units indicated an understanding of these goals 

and communicated them to us. Each also documented these goals in 

their planning documents. For example, the Geography Division’s 

governance document for GSS-I connects its purpose to working towards 

building the 2020 MAF. Moreover, in the 2020 Research and Planning 

Office’s Research and Testing management plan, the Bureau sets goals 

Define and Articulate a 

Common Outcome
Page 15 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

for the division’s research associated with improving the accuracy and 

cost-effectiveness of the MAF. The Bureau, through its strategic plan, has 

set goals for the 2020 MAF, communicating these to organizational units 

in a way that will help focus the work in support of upcoming design 

decisions.

Similar to its goals, the Bureau has established and documented joint 

strategies as part of its strategic plans. These strategies help outline how 

the Bureau will achieve the goals of an accurate, continuously updated 

and cost-effective MAF. The Bureau’s 2013-2017 Strategic Plan and 

2020 Census Strategic Plan specifically identify these strategies for 

achieving its goals for the MAF:

• implementing targeted address canvassing;

• defining components of error in the MAF;

• assessing how rules for using addresses contained in the MAF should 

change to accommodate new address sources; and

• identifying more effective approaches to incorporate addresses from 

state, local, and tribal governments.

The Bureau is executing five research projects related to these strategies. 

The Bureau is also reinforcing implementation of these strategies by 

creating new coordination groups as well as placing staff from relevant 

units on MAF-related research projects. For example, the MAF error 

model research team has representation from the Geography Division, 

the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, and the Field Division, among 

others. The importance of having joint strategies clearly documented is 

underscored by the differences in perspectives that these divisions can 

bring to common challenges they may work on together, such as 

developing a proposal for targeted address canvassing. For example, the 

Geography Division is responsible for, among other things, administering 

geographic and cartographic activities needed for the 2020 Census. Its 

research when working with other teams will focus on geographic 

concepts, methods, and standards needed for the 2020 Census. 

Meanwhile, the Field Division, with its responsibility for effectively 

deploying field personnel to support efficient field data collection, will 

focus on the “on the ground” feasibility and challenge of targeting certain 

types of housing units for address canvassing.

In addition, coordination bodies are working to share information. In May 

2013, relevant Bureau officials began to meet regularly to discuss issues 

related to implementing targeted address canvassing. Bureau officials 

Establish Mutually 

Reinforcing or 

Joint Strategies
Page 16 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

involved in these meetings said that the team acts as a vehicle to provide 

status updates across organizational boundaries. Another team working 

to identify models to predict where addresses were most in need of being 

updated was chartered in May 2013. The charter indicated that 

membership was to include representation from staff in the Field Division 

and would work with relevant research projects. By defining strategies 

and reinforcing the collaborative nature of these strategies through such 

actions as coordination groups and matrixed research teams, the Bureau 

is helping to align the activities and resources of various divisions to 

achieve the goals of the 2020 MAF.

The Bureau’s 2013-2017 Census Strategic Plan identifies relevant 

divisions within the Bureau with responsibilities related to developing a 

more cost-effective 2020 MAF and implementing targeted address 

canvassing. The 2020 Research and Planning Office has identified the 

relevant divisions participating in active research projects and 

coordination groups through documents such as charters. For example, 

the Targeted Address Canvassing Research, Model, and Area 

Classification team—a coordination team headed by the Geography 

Division—was chartered in May 2013 and defines what is both in and out 

of the scope of its activities. Members are responsible for analyzing 

potential datasets to be used for targeted address canvassing, but are not 

responsible for analyzing the costs of targeted address canvassing.

In addition, the Bureau recently established memorandums of 

understanding between the 2020 Research and Planning Office and other 

relevant divisions, generally finalizing them in May 2013 and signing them 

in June and July 2013.14

 14The 2020 Research and Planning Office separately finalized and signed a memorandum 

of understanding with the Director for Information Technology and the Chief Information 

Officer in October 2012.

These agreements are not limited to MAF 

building efforts, but they provide the broad framework for working 

together and defining coordination. The agreements define the 

responsibilities of the 2020 Research and Planning Office and the 

relevant divisions and include provisions for communication between the 

two organizational units, resource sharing, and modifying agreements as 

changes in work dictate.

Agree on Roles 

and Responsibilities 

and Participants
Page 17 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

However, the Bureau has not taken advantage of some opportunities to 

use its schedules to reinforce roles or clarify responsibilities. Detailed 

schedules for 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I do not completely 

reflect roles and responsibilities of other divisions or organizational units, 

such as by reflecting dependencies of activities or handing off to each 

other. Information on dependencies between projects is available in the 

project plans for research projects, but such dependencies are not 

reflected in the schedules. Bureau officials said they would address this 

by directing project teams to more clearly identify dependencies on 

various divisions, and review activities to be flagged as having “external”

dependencies within the Research and Testing schedule.

The Bureau reinforces individual accountability for collaborative activities 

through individual performance expectations including both broad ones 

and others specific to MAF development efforts. Bureau-wide, individuals 

are rated on their “customer service,” a work competency that includes 

their performance working in collaboration with those outside of their 

division to respond to internal and external needs. Managers we spoke 

with said that collaboration across units within the Bureau is assessed 

within this competency. Bureau officials also provided examples of 

performance management plans where staff were to be rated specifically 

on collaboration. For example, one staff member was expected to attend 

interdivisional coordination meetings and to implement new projects 

based on these meetings. The inclusion of specific performance 

expectations and metrics dependent on collaborative activity can 

reinforce synergy across organizational boundaries within the Bureau. 

This should help ensure that individuals with responsibility for developing 

the MAF have a vested interest in achieving the overall goals set by the 

Bureau.

As the Bureau moves to testing and implementation, roles and 

responsibilities will change, and the respective roles of divisions may also 

change in prominence. Continued management attention to follow leading 

practices for collaboration will help to ensure that collaboration across 

units is occurring as the Bureau strives to achieve its goal of a more costeffective 2020 MAF and Census.

Planning efforts related to targeted address canvassing and building a 

more cost-effective MAF are important to the Bureau’s efforts to control 

the costs of the 2020 decennial. As key design decisions are to be made 

in the coming years, it is important that the Bureau has a reliable 

Reinforce Collaborative 

Efforts through 

Performance Management 

Systems

Conclusions
Page 18 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

schedule in place upon which management can depend to make those 

decisions. Our analysis of two Bureau schedules key to MAF 

development efforts indicates that there are problems with the schedules’

reliability. It will be important to ensure that schedules are comprehensive 

in order for management to be reasonably assured that they have 

complete information to make decisions. Similarly, problems with the 

schedules’ construction mean that the progression of critical events could 

be unclear to management. Finally, the schedules lack credibility, 

meaning that risks, including those the Bureau has already identified, 

could impact the schedules in ways not yet considered. Some of the 

identified deficiencies indicate that staff and managers have not been 

available and prepared to sufficiently construct and maintain the 

schedules. Conducting a workforce planning process of staff working on 

MAF schedules could help the Bureau to identify staff skills needed to 

help ensure related gaps are addressed. Without staff knowledge of the 

leading practices and the importance of adhering to them, the schedules 

may prove problematic for decennial managers’ ability to assess 

progress, make decisions, identify future risks, or anticipate potential 

delays.

With its planning documents, memorandums of understanding, and 

various charters, the Bureau has put in place a framework to support 

collaborative efforts following leading practices, particularly in recent 

months, which will aid the efforts. These methods could be bolstered by 

building collaboration into the schedule. By improving practices in the 

area of constructing a schedule, the Bureau can help address these gaps. 

As the Bureau continues its implementation efforts up to and beyond key 

decisions about how to build a cost-effective MAF, it is vital to ensure that 

the practices incorporated into Bureau planning documents and 

processes thus far are continued.

To help maintain a more thorough and insightful 2020 Census 

development schedule in order to better manage risks to a successful 

2020 Census, the Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of 

Economic Affairs should direct the U.S. Census Bureau to improve its 

scheduling practices in three areas:

• the comprehensiveness of schedules, including ensuring that all 

relevant activities are included in the schedule;

• the construction of schedules, including ensuring complete logic is in 

place to identify the preceding and subsequent activities as well as a 

critical path that can be used to make decisions; and

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 19 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

• the credibility of schedules, including conducting a quantitative risk 

assessment.

In addition, we recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau 

initiate a robust workforce planning process for those working on 

schedules related to the Master Address File, including actions such as 

an analysis of skills needed, to identify and address gaps in scheduling 

skills.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce and 

received the department’s written comments on November 5, 2013. The 

comments are reprinted in appendix IV. The Department of Commerce 

concurred with our findings and recommendations and provided several

clarifications, which are reflected in this report as appropriate. As agreed 

with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report 

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. 

At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Under Secretary of Economic Affairs, the Director of the U.S. Census 

Bureau, and interested congressional committees. The report also is 

available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report please contact me at 

(202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. The GAO staff that made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 20 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

This report (1) assesses the reliability of the schedules for two key Master 

Address File (MAF) development programs, and (2) examines the extent 

to which the Census Bureau (Bureau) is following leading practices for 

collaboration for its MAF development work. To determine the extent to 

which the Bureau is following leading practices for scheduling as 

identified in the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide,1 we analyzed the 

Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I) schedule and the 2020 

Research and Planning Office (Research and Testing) schedule. We 

scored each scheduling best practice on a five-point scale ranging from 

“not met” to “fully met.” To determine the extent to which the Bureau’s key 

efforts to build a cost-effective MAF/Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) incorporate leading practices for 

collaboration, we identified leading practices to apply to intra-agency 

collaborative efforts based on our past work on leading collaboration 

practices.2

 1

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, 

Exposure Draft 

We identified organizational units and activities relevant to 

building a cost-effective MAF in consultation with the Bureau. We also 

identified documentation of their research projects. We reviewed key 

management documents for content pertaining to collaboration, including 

the Bureau’s strategic plan for the decennial and current (2013-2017) 

strategic plan. In addition, we reviewed documents directly addressing 

coordination efforts, such as charters and meeting minutes from 

coordination groups and memorandums of understanding between 

divisions. We compared the documented plans and activities to best 

practices in order to rate the extent to which leading practices were 

incorporated or were intended to be incorporated into Bureau documents. 

We rated each practice on a three-point scale from “Not Documented” to 

“Generally Documented.”

GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). Underlying these 

characteristics are 10 leading practices, which are described in appendix II. These 

characteristics and leading practices were developed in 2012 based on our practices for 

creating a reliable cost estimate and in consultation with experts from the scheduling 

community.

2

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); ResultsOriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain Collaboration Among Federal 

Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). In 2012, we developed key 

considerations for collaboration using our past work, GAO-06-15, as well as literature 

reviews and interviews with government experts.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 21 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

• Not Documented: The Bureau provided no documentary evidence that 

satisfies any of the criteria.

• Partially Documented: The Bureau provided documentary evidence 

that satisfies a portion of the criteria.

• Generally Documented: The Bureau provided documentary evidence 

that satisfies all or nearly all of the criteria.

We then interviewed Bureau officials in the Geography and 2020 

Research and Planning Office divisions to discuss schedules and their 

collaboration efforts. Additionally, regarding scheduling and collaboration, 

we spoke with relevant officials in the Center for Administrative Records 

Research and Applications, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, and 

Field Division. These divisions are participating in some MAF 

development activities with the Geography and 2020 Research and 

Planning Office divisions. Our review of scheduling and collaboration 

practices was limited to 2020 Decennial Census activities and focused on 

MAF development activities and cannot be generalized to other, nondecennial Bureau activities and operations.
Appendix II: Description of Scheduling

Best Practices

Page 22 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Characteristic Best practice Description

Comprehensive Capturing all activities A schedule should reflect all activities defined in the project’s work 

breakdown structure and include all activities to be performed by the 

government and contractor.

Assigning resources to all activities The schedule should realistically reflect the resources (i.e., labor, 

material, and overhead) needed to do the work, whether all required 

resources will be available when needed, and whether any funding or 

time constraints exist.

Establishing the durations of all activities The schedule should reflect how long each activity will take to 

execute.

Well constructed Sequencing all activities The schedule should be planned so that all activities are logically 

sequenced in the order they are to be carried out.

Confirming that the critical path is valid The schedule should identify the critical path, or those activities that, 

if delayed, will negatively impact the overall project completion date. 

The critical path enables analysis of the effect delays may have on 

the overall schedule.

Ensuring reasonable total float The schedule should identify float—the amount of time an activity can 

slip in the schedule before it affects other activities—so that flexibility 

in the schedule can be determined. As a general rule, activities along 

the critical path have the least amount of float.

Credible Verifying that the schedule is traceable 

horizontally and vertically

The detailed schedule should be horizontally traceable, meaning that 

it should link products and outcomes associated with other 

sequenced activities. The integrated master schedule should also be 

vertically traceable—that is, varying levels of activities and supporting 

subactivities can be traced. Such mapping or alignment of levels 

enables different groups to work to the same master schedule.

Conducting a schedule risk analysis The schedule should include a schedule risk analysis that uses 

statistical techniques to predict the probability of meeting a 

completion date. A schedule risk analysis can help management 

identify high priority risks and opportunities.

Controlled Updating the schedule with actual progress 

and logic

Progress updates and logic provide a realistic forecast of start and 

completion dates for program activities. Maintaining the integrity of 

the schedule logic at regular intervals is necessary to reflect the true 

status of the program. To ensure that the schedule is properly 

updated, people responsible for updating should be trained in critical 

path method scheduling. 

Maintaining a baseline schedule A baseline schedule represents the original configuration of the 

program plan and is the basis for managing the project scope, the 

time period for accomplishing it, and the required resources. 

Comparing the current status of the schedule to the baseline can help 

managers target areas for mitigation.

Source: Exposure Draft GAO-12-120G.

Appendix II: Description of Scheduling

Best Practices
Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent

to Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling Best 

Practices

Page 23 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Assessment of the Bureau’s Research and Testing Program 

Schedule

Characteristic

Overall 

assessment Best practice

Individual 

assessment

Comprehensive

◓

Capturing all activities ◓

Assigning resources to all 

activities 

Establishing the durations of all 

activities ◕

Well constructed

◔

Sequencing all activities ◓

Confirming that the critical path 

is valid ◔

Ensuring reasonable total float ◔

Credible

◔

Verifying that the schedule is 

traceable horizontally and 

vertically 

◓

Conducting a schedule risk 

analysis 

Controlled

◕

Updating the schedule with 

actual progress and logic 

◕

Maintaining a baseline 

schedule 

◕

Legend:  Fully Met: The Bureau provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criteria.

◕ Substantially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a large portion 

of the criteria.

◓ Partially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criteria.

◔ Minimally Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criteria.

 Not Met: The Bureau provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criteria.

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data.

Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent

to Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling 

Best Practices
Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent

to Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling Best 

Practices

Page 24 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Assessment of the Bureau’s Geographic Support System Program 

Schedule 

Characteristic

Overall 

assessment Best practice 

Individual 

assessment

Comprehensive

◓

Capturing all activities ◓

Assigning resources to all 

activities 

Establishing the durations of all 

activities

◕

Well constructed

◔

Sequencing all activities ◓

Confirming that the critical path 

is valid 

Ensuring reasonable total float ◓

Credible

◔

Verifying that the schedule is 

traceable horizontally and 

vertically 

◔

Conducting a schedule risk 

analysis ◔

Controlled

◕

Updating the schedule with 

actual progress and logic ◕

Maintaining a baseline 

schedule ◕

Legend:  Fully Met: The Bureau provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criteria.

◕ Substantially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a large portion 

of the criteria.

◓ Partially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criteria.

◔ Minimally Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criteria.

 Not Met: The Bureau provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criteria.

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 25 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 26 GAO-14-59 2020 Census
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 27 GAO-14-59 2020 Census
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgment

Page 28 GAO-14-59 2020 Census

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov

Other key contributors to this report include Ty Mitchell, Assistant 

Director; Tom Beall; Juaná Collymore; Rob Gebhart; David Hulett; Andrea 

Levine; Jeffrey Niblack; Karen Richey; and Timothy Wexler.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgment

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451041)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.